Thursday, February 16, 2006

Glove Affair in North Hollywood

Comments to this one will be interesting. This is an article from the Los Angeles Times, written by Randye Hoder. I'm going to reproduce the entire article here.

One thing that comes through especially well here is the writer's ambivalence about the situation. As parents, we want our children to stay innocent forever. Ms. Hoder struggles with this, and in the end comes to a resolution that is both wise and loving.

Let me insert a disclaimer here. Maybe in LA they have "condom clubs" or whatever. Nobody has proposed anything like this in Montgomery County, Maryland, and Teach the Facts is not promoting this idea.

But I think you will find it interesting to see what people in another part of the country are doing.

I WAS HANGING around this week at my son's elementary school, chatting with a group of parents as we waited to take our second- and third-graders on a field trip. Suddenly, one mom raced toward me and, nearly breathless, said, "You have to tell me about Glove Affair."

"What's Glove Affair?" another mom asked.

"It's a condom party for teenagers," the first mom replied before I could say a word.

Suddenly all eyes were on me, eager for an explanation of how I could possibly allow my 13-year-old daughter, Emma, to attend such an event.

The truth is, when Emma arrived home the previous Saturday night clutching a goody bag from Glove Affair, my liberal credentials were instantly tested. One by one I pulled the following from her white plastic sack: a condom; pamphlets on masturbation, oral sex and intercourse; the "Rubber Bible," featuring alternative names for prophylactics, such as "gent tent" and "peenie beanie"; and an information wheel labeled "Condom Comebacks," which included a list of excuses boys might make for not wearing a condom and possible rejoinders a girl could offer.

Him: "It doesn't feel good."

Her: "I've got moves rubbers can't stop."

I tried to play it cool. As it turned out, I was a little too cool. While standing in the kitchen with my daughter and her friend, getting all the post-party gossip, I absentmindedly reached into the bag and handed my 8-year-old son a squishy red toy that resembled one of those ubiquitous M&M candy guys.

The girls burst out laughing. "What's so funny?" I asked. They snatched the trinket from my son and turned it upside down. Printed there was the web address stopthesores.org. This was no candy icon; it was a toy syphilis lesion, bright red, with feet.

That's when I insisted my son go to bed, bid the girls goodnight and went upstairs, where I tossed the information wheel at my husband. "Boy," I said casually, "Jerry Falwell would sure bust an artery over this."

"Forget Jerry Falwell," he said, looking up. "I'm going to bust an artery." I was relieved that I wasn't the only one feeling prudish. Was this too much information too soon?

Oakwood School in North Hollywood, where my daughter is in eighth grade, has been holding Glove Affair since 2000. In reality, it's not a "condom party" but a fundraiser for L.A. AIDS-prevention groups. This year, about 500 teens attended — half from other middle and high schools across the city.

The aim is for kids to understand that having sex is serious business and to help them become utterly at ease with condoms, right down to unrolling them correctly and learning to check the expiration date. Mickey Morgan, a social studies teacher at Oakwood who helps organize the event, says that's especially important for girls "so that it's not awkward for them to talk about safe sex with boys — when the time comes."

There are those, of course, who argue that all of this explicitness will do nothing but lead teenagers to engage in sex. And I admit, there's a part of me that remains a little queasy over the graphic nature of Glove Affair. But as schools wrestle with the question of how much information is too much, many health experts insist that the answer is clear: At a time when HIV and teen pregnancy are so prevalent, educators can't do enough to demystify condoms, even for eighth-graders who may be just beginning to explore their sexuality.

A few days after Glove Affair, I asked Emma what she thought about it — beyond the DJ and the dancing. She explained to me that seventh-graders aren't allowed to attend because they haven't yet completed the school's human development curriculum. The course covers human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases, among other topics, and teaches students how to properly use a condom.

"Teenagers are going to have sex if they want to," she said. "Don't you think it's better that if they do, at least it's safe sex?" For the next half an hour we talked about her human development class, AIDS and teenage sex.

Emma was so poised, so mature, so relaxed and so informed that talking to her about sex was really easy. And she was right. "Knowing about sex doesn't mean you're going to have it," she said. "It just means that when you are ready, you'll know the facts. That makes me feel a lot more comfortable."

I'm not sure I'll ever be completely comfortable. But as I told the group of elementary school moms gathered around me, knowing that my daughter is makes me feel a whole lot better. Sex education for parents too

36 Comments:

Jim writes,Comments to this one will be interesting. This is an article from the Los Angeles Times, written by Randye Hoder. I'm going to reproduce the entire article here.

No doubt...btw, and not that I am going to "rat" you out, but isn't reproducing an entire article a copyright violation? The reason I mention this is because I was reading an article from the LA Times on the LDS Church and Book of Mormon DNA on a link from an ex-mormon website bulletin board and one of the Admins would not allow the article to be posted (fortunately all it takes to read the article is registration, and that is still free...at least for now).

One thing that comes through especially well here is the writer's ambivalence about the situation.

Ambivalence? Goodness, it sounded to me like her conscience was trying to break thru the walls of denial.

As parents, we want our children to stay innocent forever.

"Innocent forever"? No, not forever, just for the duration of their childhood, which at the present rate of social "progress" is getting shorter and shorter. Where will it stop?

Hoder struggles with this, and in the end comes to a resolution that is both wise and loving.

Perhaps...if you consider it wise to take advice from the inexperienced in life, which is exactly what it appears the mother has done,

(from the LA Times op-ed by Hoder)"Teenagers are going to have sex if they want to," she said. "Don't you think it's better that if they do, at least it's safe sex?" For the next half an hour we talked about her human development class, AIDS and teenage sex.

Ahhh, isn't that touching? And nary a hint of judgementalism, one of our time's Seven Deadly Sins.

Let me insert a disclaimer here. Maybe in LA they have "condom clubs" or whatever. Nobody has proposed anything like this in Montgomery County, Maryland, and Teach the Facts is not promoting this idea.

Yes, Jim, that is true...for now. But will that remain true down the road? Somehow I seriously doubt that and it reminds me of a quote that expresses exactly what I mean here...

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated need but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

Thanks for breaking the ice, Orin, I was afraid I'd jinxed the comments by commenting on them!

As far as copyright, this is more-or-less untested waters. When I have quoted articles in DC-area papers before, I have often contacted reporters and/or editors and been told (usually with a chuckle) that it was OK to quote them, even in their entirety. A couple of newspapers, NYT for example, have put important stuff in "pay only" zones, and now you find all kinds of sites reproducing those articles. CillyGoose asked me the other day if I had a subscription to one of the science magazines, which had an important story on our topic; I didn't, but it only took a minute to find the article on another web site.

I recently read that somebody wanted to charge people to link to their site, which is on the other side of the fuzzy rule. I could have done that here, just linked to it and commented on it, and technically the effect would've been the same, except you readers would've had to work so hard, clicking links and then clicking "back," so I saved you the trouble.

I'm sure it will come down to a big lawsuit at some point involving bigger fish than us, but right now it's unclear, and I think we provide a service by presenting the article and also attributing it correctly and putting a link to it.

One aspect of it is the enormous amounts of money that TTF generates on this web site, which of course is funneled to the mothership that we are so glaad to report to and take orders from.

And on this page, there is an article about Michelle Turner, the (LDS) President of the CRC.

And in that article, there is this quote about our former "new" curriculum: The revisions had been recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development, a 27-member group that had many representatives from both homosexual groups and those that aggressively advocate sexual activity and abortion. Members represented PFLAG, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the Unitarian Universalitst Church — and the representative from the Mental Health Association was a lesbian.

Now, I understand these conservative people failing to note the presence of many groups that represent their view, twisting the facts is a familiar thing. Plus, we know, from the subject of the article, where they get their "facts."

But note that last little phrase.

The "representative from the Mental Health Association" is identifiable by name, anybody can figure out who that was, it's a matter of public record. And the lady is married, to a soldier as I recall.

Now, two things might have happened here. This LDS magazine might be outing this lady, who married this guy and is living the straight life in order to conceal the secret fact that she is a lesbian. Or the the magazine might be publishing a lie that is certain to be interpreted in the very worst light by its readership.

In either case, I would think, non-lawyer that I am, that you have here an instance of libel.

So, at least in this case, the LDS are not too awfully concerned about legal liabilities, are they?

If TTF contends that the stigma of homosexuality should be eliminated, does it make sense that it would be slander to say someone is one? No one could be sued for saying someone is a Democrat when he's a Republican. Or that they're a Methodist when they're a Lutheran. Or that they're a blonde when they're a brunette.

Look at that web site. Look at what they say:"If you are a parent in Montgomery County Maryland, your help is vitally needed to fight the introduction of a curriculum promoting homosexuality in the public schools.""...unanimously voted to accept revisions to their existing Family Life and Human Development program that made parents gasp.""...a very attractive blonde woman demonstrating its use and introducing students to oral and anal sex...""...Michelle Turner, an LDS mother of seven and a PTA president, also sat on that committee, but her voice was not enough to turn the tide away from this destructive curriculum..."

There is no doubt about the writer's intent, Anon. In this crowd, saying someone is a lesbian is saying something that would lead to ostracism.

Thanks for pointing that out...I missed that article (truth be told, I pay little attention to things of an LDS religious flavor).

The "representative from the Mental Health Association" is identifiable by name, anybody can figure out who that was, it's a matter of public record. And the lady is married, to a soldier as I recall.

Oh, my...

Now, two things might have happened here. This LDS magazine might be outing this lady, who married this guy and is living the straight life in order to conceal the secret fact that she is a lesbian. Or the the magazine might be publishing a lie that is certain to be interpreted in the very worst light by its readership.

I could not tell you...honest, I draw a blank. If I had a hunch I'd share it, but either explanation is plausible, IMO.

In either case, I would think, non-lawyer that I am, that you have here an instance of libel.

Though I am also not a lawyer, I would be with you Jim...it looks like a possible case of libel. A lawyer looking at this could tell quickly...

So, at least in this case, the LDS are not too awfully concerned about legal liabilities, are they?

Well, this website is not an official website for the LDS Church, nor does it speak for the LDS Church in any official capacity. With that said, the Procters, a husband and wife team, are LDS and have covered the issue of homosexuality from an LDS "perspective" in the past.

Now that I think of it...I guess perhaps it might be the latter explanation, since guilt by association is an old favorite LDS standby.

Later, Jim writes,There is no doubt about the writer's intent, Anon. In this crowd, saying someone is a lesbian is saying something that would lead to ostracism.

I would have to agree with you Jim. And really not just ostracism, since that is difflicult to do where LDS do not hold much population edge (unlike in the West, esp. the "Mormon Belt"...Utah, Idaho and Arizona). I think the reason this person's sexual orientation was mentioned (if indeed this was not public knowledge, that is, this person was already "out") was to attempt to discredit and delegitimize the professional credentials of this person as a mental health professional.

Has this person been made aware of this (mis)information/potential libel? I think they should...

It is a -9 degrees F. outside, at 9:35 MST...and I am wearing my shorts...now, that is a way to attract attention! LOL.

Hey guys, I don't want to defend the Mormon church per se. As an evangelical, I obviously find many of their doctrines heretical.

Still, I don't think someone in a politically appointed position can sue for slander. I know that would apply if they were elected. I think being appointed to a governmental committee would also remove you from ordinary slander considerations.

In addition to that possible libelous remark, the article Jim referenced published by Meridian Magazine was full of inaccuracies and spin.

It said "A Lone Voice...She [Michelle Turner] said, 'I spoke about my concerns before the Board of Education the day the curriculum was presented, but they were completely ignored.'”

"The day the curriculum was presented" was not the only day that Mrs. Turner "spoke about her concerns." In fact, her "concerns" were voiced at several meetings of the CAC and they were voted down by the majority.

Also, hers was far from "a lone voice" on the committee. The CAC that included Mrs. Turner as a member also included:

"Another Montgomery County parent got wind of the curriculum and created a website that grabbed a lot of attention where parents could log on to post their concerns."

Excellent reporting, except they somehow managed to skip the name of that website which was www.RECALLMONTGOMERYSCHOOLBOARD.com Either the CRC omitted this fact in their interview or the reporter omitted it from the article because the CRC's association with this hateful website shows how far from the mainstream their views really are.

Also omitted was the fact that CRC purchased and directed the domain name "teachthefacts.com" to the CRC website. This action demonstrates the CRC's view that tricking people into reading your views when they intend to read someone else's views is acceptable.

Also please note it's "another Montgomery County parent," not "another Montgomery County Public School parent" who started the RECALL group. Very few CRC leaders are MCPS parents, and few if any of those opt their offspring into health class. This means CRC leaders have very little, if any, experience with students taking these classes. On the other hand, every TTF.org officer and board member has children enrolled in MCPS and all of our MCPS students have been opted into health classes. We have first hand knowledge of the deficiencies with the 1990s written curriculum that the CRC thinks is fine for MCPS students.

"...on a Saturday morning three weeks before Christmas 75 people showed up. 'At the conclusion of that meeting which lasted about 2-1/2 hours, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) was born.'"

There were two groups born that day. After hearing John Garza loudly proclaim his desire and intent to sue MCPS BOE again, we knew we had to stop him and the rest of the religious extremists at that meeting who were in 100% agreement that gays are dirty sinful sodomites. As the RECALL meeting split up into working groups, several founding members of TTF.org who also attended, met outside in the parking lot and began forming our own group. Teachthefacts.org officially launched it's yahoo discussion group a few days before Christmas, 2004. Of course Mrs. Turner could not have known that TTF.org began to form that same day as she remained inside the community pool facility to organize CRC into groups which included media, clergy, legal, PTA, and others.

"Then began months of trying to meet with the school board and the superintendent — all who turned CRC down. They cited a pending lawsuit with PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) as their reason for not talking — even though CRC was not involved in the lawsuit....Finally, after months of trying to get the board’s attention, CRC decided to join in the lawsuit against the board."

Such a well crafted lie here, it's almost true...almost. For months the CRC did pepper the BOE with requests to meet and some few meetings did occur. The lie is that the CRC was not involved with the lawsuit until "after months of trying to get the board's attention." Maybe they were not officially involved in the lawsuit as far as putting their name on any documents, but John Garza's statements at the December 4, 2004 RECALL meeting and in the cached insider discussions of CRC leadership clearly show that the CRC was "involved with the lawsuit" months before they officially joined it.

Here's a direct quote written by Mr. Garza on January 18, 2005 as the CRC executive board members discussed the situation among themselves:

"The lawfirm that just whipped the BOE due to its unconstitutional conduct against the young men of the "Good News Club" has agreed to help us in our case. We a [sic] putting together quite a team of lawyers. If you know of any kids who have been discriminated against for their viewpoint, or religious beliefs please let me know..."

"This new policy excluded both CRC’s and PFOX’s candidates. CRC went back to the settlement agreement, which clearly said that they could nominate their own representatives. Two weeks later, the school board conceded and accepted PFOX’s sole nominee, but not CRC’s."

All groups except for CRC and PFOX managed to follow the rules to secure a seat on the CAC. The rule from the settlement agreement that covers membership on the CAC is this:

"6. MCPS agrees that the newly-constituted CAC, for the term during which the consultation on the Revisions contemplated by the Board’s May 23, 2005 resolution will occur, will include a maximum of 15 members and will include one representative of PFOX and one representative of CRC, to be selected by the Board in accordance with Section C(2)(a)(3) of Board Policy BMA, provided such representatives are Montgomery County residents and are otherwise qualified and able to serve on the committee. PFOX and CRC will inform the Board of their nominees in writing by July 1, 2005."

The rule CRC/PFOX objected to said that a group that wishes a seat on the CAC must submit one nominee and two alternates, and all three may not have served on the CAC before. All groups except for CRC and PFOX managed to comply. CRC and PFOX apparently had trouble finding three willing persons who believe as they do but had not already served. This trouble should come as no surprise given that their view is considered so extreme by most Montgomery County residents.

The Board, acting in good faith and trying to get PFOX and CRC to act in good faith as well, accepted the sole PFOX nominee since he had not previously served on the Advisory Committee. The CRC's sole nominee had already served and so was not eligible to serve again. Months later, CRC finally relented and offered a single nominee who had not previously served, and the BOE who had held the seat open for them, approved this nominee because she met the two simple qualifying requirements.

"To a social conservative, both your means and your ends have to be consistent with moral action. It is not true that any means can be employed to achieve your desired end."

All readers can decide for themselves if CRC "means" have been moral as they try to achieve their desired "end."

Would you be in favor of a curriculum in Montgomery County that mirrored the "glove party" described in Jim's post above ?

Do you think the mother described in the post above reacted well ? Or would you have sat your 12 year old down and discussed why she might want to think twice above having sex as a teenager instead ?

Why she should at a minimum wait till she is a little older than 12 or 13, how girls who do have sex frequently develop reputations and certainly even with birth control can catch somthing or get pregnant ...

All the standard things I believe any responsible parent should be talking about with their teenagers..

Or would you take the stance that - gee, since the state has told her that she is going to have sex as a teenager, I guess she's going to. No choice in that matter. No restraint, no self-control involved. Might as well accept it, it's going to happen.

Just curious if you approve of this "glove party" idea, and if you would react the way the mother above did.

Theresa asked, Would you be in favor of a curriculum in Montgomery County that mirrored the "glove party" described in Jim's post above ?

You might want to check out this website http://www.gloveaffair.com/

Glove Affair is not a curriculum. It is a 4 hour fundraising event sponsored by 6 teachers at the Oakwood School in North Hollywood, which is a private school. Glove Affair is an annual Saturday night dance party and the proceeds are given to three AIDS charities in Los Angeles: the AIDS Project of Los Angeles, Reach L A, and Peer Education Program of L A. In addition to the dance party, the three recipient charities and other AIDS prevention organizations are asked set up tables and sponsor side events to advocate and provide information about their services.

Or would you have sat your 12 year old down and discussed why she might want to think twice above having sex as a teenager instead ?

Instead of what? You seem to think the purpose of sex education is to encourage teenagers to have sex. I strongly disagree. Sex education teaches important life skills that enable people to enjoy healthier, more productive lives. When it's time for their child to enroll in human sexuality health class, I think parents should take the opportunity to discuss this sensitive topic with them and to reinforce the values they have been teaching them all their lives.

(By the way, in the article the daughter is 13 not 12, and my only child still living at home is 15.)

Why she should at a minimum wait till she is a little older than 12 or 13, how girls who do have sex frequently develop reputations and certainly even with birth control can catch somthing or get pregnant ...

All of this information was included in the revised MCPS curriculum. I support including these things in health classes on human sexuality in our public schools (and it sounds like you do too).

Or would you take the stance that - gee, since the state has told her that she is going to have sex as a teenager, I guess she's going to.

What state has told my daughter "she is going to have sex as a teenager?" And no Theresa, I don't just say "I guess she's going to." Each of my children will decide for themselves when they will become sexually active. My job as a parent is to ensure that my children have the best, most current information available to make the best decision they can for themselves. I absolutely do not believe that keeping them ignorant about sexual matters is in their best interest. Nor do I believe that the MCPS human sexuality curriculum should still be used without being updated for more than 12 years, as CRC does.

Just curious if you approve of this "glove party" idea, and if you would react the way the mother above did.

Since the glove party is optional and since it is put on to raise money for what I consider to be a good cause (AIDS prevention), I would be happy to see some teachers here in MCPS do something similar for the Montgomery County community. I would expect each community to tailor the side events to fit the locale and as such would expect Montgomery County's version to be quite a bit tamer than Hollywood's.

No, I would not have reacted the same way as this mother did because I would have known what a Glove Affair was before I would allow my 12 year old daughter to attend. And I probably would have gone with her, most likely as a parent volunteer chaperone.

OK, my turn to ask a question.

"Finally, after months of trying to get the board’s attention, CRC decided to join in the lawsuit against the board."

"What state has told my daughter "she is going to have sex as a teenager?""

MCPS's curriculum approaches the subject as if they think that's what will normally happen. There's some obligatory talk about abstinence but it's discussed as something parents would prefer like eating healthy and not watching too much TV not like something that is a societal expectation.

"When, how and why did TTF first form? Have Kennedy, Andrea, Byers, Grewell and Fishback been involved from the beginning? "

I stated when, how, and why Teachthefacts.org formed in my comment about the Meridian Magazine article Jim cited. To remind you:

when: December 4, 2004

how and why: "After hearing John Garza loudly proclaim his desire and intent to sue MCPS BOE again, we knew we had to stop him and the rest of the religious extremists at that meeting who were in 100% agreement that gays are dirty sinful sodomites. As the RECALL meeting split up into working groups, several founding members of TTF.org who also attended, met outside in the parking lot and began forming our own group."

There is no TTF.org member named "Byers." Jim, Andrea and I have "been involved since the beginning." We learned about and invited David to join our discussion group soon after. David's input has always been honest and reliable.

"Could you be more specific? Which life skills?

You seem to be an adult so I should not have to spoon feeding you, Anon. Read the curriculum (there's a handy link to it on the righthand side of this page) and glean the life skills from it yourself. Here's one to get you going: how to prevent unplanned pregnancy in order to reduce the incidence of abortion in this country.

""What state has told my daughter "she is going to have sex as a teenager?"

MCPS's curriculum approaches the subject as if they think that's what will normally happen. There's some obligatory talk about abstinence but it's discussed as something parents would prefer like eating healthy and not watching too much TV not like something that is a societal expectation. "

You are entitled to your opinion. Each parent must decide if this optional instruction is something they want their child to recieve or not. For the past several years, approximately 1% of MCPS parents have not allowed their students to take this class.

I've been told that TTF was operating well before CRC's initial meeting. Indeed, isn't that why you all attended the meeting? I was at the meeting and remember some people standing outside the hall, creating quite a racket until Michelle Turner went outside and told you to leave. That was before CRC broke up into committees and was still trying to conduct its meeting.

I've also been told that there were discussions on some MCPS school listservs of planning the TTF website well before CRC's initial meeting. Also, I'm told discussions similar to those being held here were being held by you three on those listservs well before CRC's initial meeting. I assume these are still available on the internet. Have I been mislead or are you being misleading by claiming you suddenly decided to take action at CRC's initial meeintg?

How interesting that Fishback was involved with your group almost from the beginning and for months while he was also chairing a committee that was supposed to represent the parents of Montgmoery County. Would it be fair to say TTF had a rep on the old CAC?

"For the past several years, approximately 1% of MCPS parents have not allowed their students to take this class."

The health teachers at these schools do a lot to pressure parents into signing this. When we refused to, they called us at home repeatedly and told us they hadn't heard of anyone opting out before.

If the schools taught a total abstinence class with a live teacher and made the promiscuity safety and gay affirmation classes the self-study libary course, you'd get the same response for the live teacher. Parents don't pay attention.

I've been told that TTF was operating well before CRC's initial meeting.

Hearsay. You won't identify yourself and I doubt you'll identify your source either, but you are both wrong. The TTF yahoo group began on December 22, 2004.

Indeed, isn't that why you all attended the meeting?

As an Einstein parent I received an invitation to the December 4, 2004 meeting posted to the Einstein Yahoo group on November 17, 2004. The invitation read:

"Hello,

For those of you with concerns regarding the teaching of sexual orientation andvariation to 8th graders and how to put on a condom for 10th graders, along withthe "new"definition of what constitiutes a family, you are invited to attend a meeting with parents, and a teacher or two, on Saturday, Dec. 4 at 10 a.m.

This meeting is to discuss concerns over the new curriculum that is scheduledfor introductiion next semester and how to either alter it or remove it.

Please contact me directly at: mnturner@...

Michelle TurnerEinstein, Sligo, Oakland Terrace parent"

Since I was interested in hearing what the "concerns" were, I decided to attend the meeting. I contacted Michelle privately as requested. I let her know I was planning to attend and asked her to please provide me with the location of the meeting since it was not noted in the invitation.

I was at the meeting and remember some people standing outside the hall, creating quite a racket until Michelle Turner went outside and told you to leave. That was before CRC broke up into committees and was still trying to conduct its meeting.

I was inside the pool building until people began to move to various corners to form the committees, sitting on the aisle and right next to a very tall woman who I believe is Laura Quigley.

I've also been told that there were discussions on some MCPS school listservs of planning the TTF website well before CRC's initial meeting. Also, I'm told discussions similar to those being held here were being held by you three on those listservs well before CRC's initial meeting. I assume these are still available on the internet.

More hearsay. I just checked the Einstein Yahoo group home page. Every message posted to that listserve since it began in March of 2000 is there. Have fun reading them.

Have I been mislead or are you being misleading by claiming you suddenly decided to take action at CRC's initial meeintg?

Although I was aware of the bigoted nature of the posted messages at the RECALLMONTGOMERYSCHOOLBOARD.com website where Michelle also posted an invitation to the December 4 meeting, it was not until I heard John Garza state his intention to sue the county over the curriculum revisions that I decided to act.

When did TTF start reading all of CRC's private e-mail?

I never read any private email. What I read are messages CRC posted to a site they apparently but wrongly assumed was private. These message boards have been posted on various comment sections on this blog previously. Enjoy reading those too.

Anonymous writes:“How interesting that Fishback was involved with your group almost from the beginning and for months while he was also chairing a committee that was supposed to represent the parents of Montgmoery County.”

Well, that is no more "interesting" than the fact that CAC Member Michelle Turner “was involved with [Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum] from the beginning.” Both Michelle and I were at-large members of the CAC. I certainly had no fewer rights than Michelle to work with like-minded people regarding the public discussion that intensified after the BOE’s November 2004 vote to pilot the curriculum revisions.

Also, I want to correct the record on one point. An earlier post on the thread may have suggested that Kimberly Campbell (representing the People’s Community Baptist Church) was an ally of Michelle’s on the CAC. To the contrary. Dr. Campbell, who is a trained clinical psychologist, voted with the overwhelming majority on the CAC and was a voice of reason and wisdom on the CAC. See this excerpt from an April 2004 article in the Gazette:

“Those who have supported the panel's recommendations say the accusations of bias are unfounded. “‘We spend a considerable amount of time listening to their objections,’ [CAC member Kimberly] Campbell said. ‘We spend a considerable amount of time reading articles that they bring in to counter perspectives.’ “That sometimes means spending as much as 30 minutes of the committee's monthly meeting debating a single word, she said. “‘What is it they do in Congress?’ Campbell said. ‘Filibustering?’”

cillygoose:"What state has told my daughter "she is going to have sex as a teenager?""

The longer version of this rhetorical (cynical?),

What state has told my daughter "she is going to have sex as a teenager?" And no Theresa, I don't just say "I guess she's going to." Each of my children will decide for themselves when they will become sexually active. My job as a parent is to ensure that my children have the best, most current information available to make the best decision they can for themselves. I absolutely do not believe that keeping them ignorant about sexual matters is in their best interest. Nor do I believe that the MCPS human sexuality curriculum should still be used without being updated for more than 12 years, as CRC does.

And Anonymous replies,

MCPS's curriculum approaches the subject as if they think that's what will normally happen.

Not just the MCPS curriculum, really any public school system curriculum that teaches anything short of an ABSTINENCE-ONLY designed curriculum.

There's some obligatory talk about abstinence but it's discussed as something parents would prefer like eating healthy and not watching too much TV not like something that is a societal expectation.

LOL!!! Precious few school age children (and that is what you are until you become an adult at age 18) do not know about pregnancy and STD prevention (now I realize that at this point someone is going to trot out a survey proving beyond a doubt that teens are abysmally ignorant about pregnancy and STD prevention, thereby creating the need to Teach the "Facts"). Teen-children do in fact know that if they have sex they can get pregnant (girls) and/or an STD (girls & boys), but, and this is the catch, they don't think it will happen to THEM!

That's a very good point, Orin, though , unfortunately, a large percentage of teens really don't know. I expect that number has decreased, but when I worked in ERs I was shocked at the general level of ignorance.

Your point, however, is well taken, and is consistent with the young's general sense of invilnerability, be it while having sex or making war. And there is no simple answer to it, because if you try to force reality down their throats, they just move farther away. I think we've all been there in some form or another. My sense is that it's part of our makeup, like the sex drive. Without it, our ancestors would have lacked the courage and imagination to take the risks that have led us to where we are today. And we just need to remember that most of those ancestors never lived past 30, so they were always in that "I'm invulnerable" state. The ones who were able to balance that with a sufficient degree of caution were the ones who survived to procreate.

Orin Ryssman said... Anonymous said...(responding to an entry by cillygoose)

cillygoose:"What state has told my daughter "she is going to have sex as a teenager?""

The longer version of this rhetorical (cynical?),

What state has told my daughter "she is going to have sex as a teenager?" And no Theresa, I don't just say "I guess she's going to." Each of my children will decide for themselves when they will become sexually active. My job as a parent is to ensure that my children have the best, most current information available to make the best decision they can for themselves. I absolutely do not believe that keeping them ignorant about sexual matters is in their best interest. Nor do I believe that the MCPS human sexuality curriculum should still be used without being updated for more than 12 years, as CRC does.

And Anonymous replies,

MCPS's curriculum approaches the subject as if they think that's what will normally happen.

Not just the MCPS curriculum, really any public school system curriculum that teaches anything short of an ABSTINENCE-ONLY designed curriculum.

There's some obligatory talk about abstinence but it's discussed as something parents would prefer like eating healthy and not watching too much TV not like something that is a societal expectation.

LOL!!! Precious few school age children (and that is what you are until you become an adult at age 18) do not know about pregnancy and STD prevention (now I realize that at this point someone is going to trot out a survey proving beyond a doubt that teens are abysmally ignorant about pregnancy and STD prevention, thereby creating the need to Teach the "Facts"). Teen-children do in fact know that if they have sex they can get pregnant (girls) and/or an STD (girls & boys), but, and this is the catch, they don't think it will happen to THEM! Now, why is this so? As a medical/scientific study (peer reviewed and published) showed, the last part of a teen-child/young adult's brain to develop/mature is the part governing the higher logic/reasoning and impulse control parts.

The two operative words here (and Anonymous hits the nail on the head) are societal expectation. When our public schools teach pregnancy and STD prevention they do so under the color of authority and teens, perceptive as ever, pick up on this, even with the abstinence "chaser" tossed in. "Yeah," they think to themselves, "they tell me all of these reasons to be abstinent, but then they say that if I just can't help myself, and I feel the urge, and I really do feel at that moment that I love this person, then if I use protection I will be ok."

I have a different message I would teach teen-children...I would explain that sexual expression is the most intimate type of human expression possible. And of all forms of human expression, sexual expression implies to the other in that act of expression a bond, a committment.

I would then inform them, the teen-children, that they are not yet prepared sufficiently in life to make that sort of a committment. This is something that their parents have collectively determined on a societal scale is in their children's best interest.

And then (finally) I would explain to them that if they go ahead, and choose to disregard our best advice and direction, that they do so at their own risk. But not just risk...if they go ahead and engage in sexual expression with another teen-child they have made liars, yes liars, of themselves.

How so? Simple, really. (And this is where I quote and give credit for this original idea by William Kilpatrick in his book _Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: Moral Illiteracy and the Case for Character Education_),

"But there is an even greater unreality lying at the bottom of the safe-sex approach, and that is the assumption that pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are the only problems. Another possibility - that one can do harm to one's own personality as well as to one's health through casual sex - is largely ignored. The link between sex and character is a missing link in sex education.

Sexual activity affects the kind of person we are in deep and lasting ways. The idea that one can have sex with one person after another without becoming a different person is naive, to say the least. The traditional reference to sexual intercourse as the "act of love" recognizes that is an action that creates a bond and implies a promise. To have sex without any such intent makes one a bit of a liar. To do it over and over with numerous partners makes one a liar several times over."(pp. 62-63)

Thanks for your input and for your honesty, Orin. I am happy to converse with an adult who identifies himself.

Abstinence-only sex education does not include information about contraception, other than perhaps failure rates. Proper usage of prophylactics is not included.

On the other hand, abstinence-based comprehensive sex education includes the same abstinence lessons and also provides instruction on the proper usage of contraceptives. This is an important life skill that students may use for many of their reproductive years.

I agree with you on this point: Teenagers and even many adults mistakenly believe they are invincible -- they believe STDs and unplanned pregnancies will not happen to them. However, withholding medically accurate information is not the best way to break through this misconception.

The best way to break through teens' notions of invincibility is with information, lots and lots of information that is reality based. The reality is that approximately 50% of high school students will become sexually active before graduation and 50% won't. The reality is also that 99% of Americans will not be virgins when they marry.

We have to provide sex education for both 50%s of high schoolers. Those who would practice abstinence until marriage will still do so and all students will have the knowledge to prevent unplanned pregnancy as well as STDs when their time comes.

I'm a bit of a romantic, too, so I can't really disagree with your approach. But sexual relationships aren't only about love, however much some of us may want them to be. Relationships often fail, even with the best intentions. Sexual activity is not a dirty, sinful activity per se, but only when used destructively. So I am not one who believes so-called traditional sexual ethics, the old double standard, is ethical in itself, and that all sex is wrong between consenting adults..

Thanks for your input and for your honesty, Orin. I am happy to converse with an adult who identifies himself.

Thank you for the compliment...I think putting my name on my work helps me to more carefully consider what I write.

Abstinence-only sex education does not include information about contraception, other than perhaps failure rates. Proper usage of prophylactics is not included.

That is true...then again, it is like stating that water is wet and the sky is blue, that is, it states the obvious. Frankly, I am not comfortable with the abstinence-only focus on failure rate of condoms because I think it takes the focus away from what ought to constitute the core part of the abstinence message.

On the other hand, abstinence-based comprehensive sex education includes the same abstinence lessons and also provides instruction on the proper usage of contraceptives. This is an important life skill that students may use for many of their reproductive years.

Ok, so we all agree that this is a life skill that students ought to possess...when do we teach it then? Why not teach it when the lesson is most likely to sink in a bit...say in 12th grade?

Hold on just a minute there, you all say...why wait until 12th grade???

I am not so naive or unrealistic to suppose for even a moment that young adults will not desire to copulate before they marry. But, for the most part in K thru 12 education we are talking about children...and that naturally begs the question: ought we to be even perceived to be uncertain as to societal standards should be? Well, apparently some think we should not be so judgemental,

[quote]A nonjudgmental and unbiased attitude of tolerance and understanding for teens, whether they choose to be sexually active or abstain.[end quote] (taken from http://www.scarleteen.com/about.html)

Truth be told, teen-children want to know what their parents think. I distinctly recall my father mentioning to me how some pilots and co-pilot (he was a flight engineer; he retired on the Boeing 747-SP) would go for drinks with some of the stewardesses (this is going back some 40 years) and mentioned this in a way that clearly communicated that he did not approve of this behavior. He thought it would lead to infidelity, and sometimes it did. I have taught my own two girls to be intolerant...intolerant of bullies, and to always be kind and a friend to those that do not have one.

I agree with you on this point: Teenagers and even many adults mistakenly believe they are invincible -- they believe STDs and unplanned pregnancies will not happen to them. However, withholding medically accurate information is not the best way to break through this misconception.

While medical information is certainly necessary, it is not sufficient. Knowledge and wisdom are not synonyms...and just because a teen-child knows that they should put a condom on before copulating does not mean they will actually do this. Would it not be better for teen-children to stay away from "the cliff" then to risk going off it?

The best way to break through teens' notions of invincibility is with information, lots and lots of information that is reality based.

And what then?...hope they remember all of the information is remembered in the "heat of the moment"? My father taught me once that "when passion runs high, reason goes out the window". Even in a "normal" state of being for any teen-child is "not reasonable"; in a sexually charged, excited, and agitated state of mind I highly doubt the reasonability of teens will improve any.

Sorry, color me skeptical...

The reality is that approximately 50% of high school students will become sexually active before graduation and 50% won't.

Actually I have seen figures that show a majority of teen-children will not become sexually active until they graduate. Still, SIECUS et al manage to find a majority that say they will be sexually active. So who to believe?....

The reality is also that 99% of Americans will not be virgins when they marry.

We have to provide sex education for both 50%s of high schoolers. Those who would practice abstinence until marriage will still do so and all students will have the knowledge to prevent unplanned pregnancy as well as STDs when their time comes.

"We have to provide..." is a normative statement, that is, an opinion of the way things ought to be.

To establish a moral climate that clearly delineates the difference between virtue and vice, and designates teen-child sexual expression as a vice would communicate a clear standard about which our children would have less doubt about (as opposed to the present societal approach).

Children generally do not rise higher than the expectations set for them by adults and society.

Christine

Time to take nap...thank you Christine for the intellectually invigorating discussion.

It's interesting that you are using recent brain studies to categorize adolescents as children. Using the language "teen-child" certainly biases the conversation. While my 18 year old would certainly agree that he needs much more sleep than an adult, is probably still too impulsive . . . , he would greatly resent being called a child.

But if that's the case, then we certainly shouldn't be prosecuting teens as adults, or sending them off to war.

I also wouldn't be surprised if teen sex were a necessary period of experimentation in human relationships, similar to play in children. Remember, throughout human history human sexual relationships uniformly began at puberty. My personal experience has been that those people (usually women) who abstained from sex and basically from sexual relationships in general during adolescence turned out pretty naive and lonely when they finally started dating. To expect to hit it off in the first serious adult relationship is pretty naive. But that's just been my observation.

My last reply to Orin in this thread was a response only to his sent-too-early comment. This comment is in response to more of Orin's remarks.

Orin said, "Thank you for the compliment...I think putting my name on my work helps me to more carefully consider what I write."

You are welcome for the compliment. Let's hope all Anons will acknowledge your point, use their name, and more carefully consider what they write too.

"When our public schools teach pregnancy and STD prevention they do so under the color of authority and teens, perceptive as ever, pick up on this, even with the abstinence "chaser" tossed in.

Abstinence is not a "chaser;" it is the basis of the program. Read through the curriculum by using the link near the top on the right hand side on this page. Students are taught to define and describe abstinence. They learn it is the only 100% effective means of pregnancy prevention and the only 100% effective means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases. They are taught that abstinence "before marriage and for teens ... is the best choice."

By the way, it is due to the "color of authority" of the State that the First Amendment was written. It was intended "to erect a wall of separation between Church and State," at least according to Judge Williams who granted the 10 day TRO in the lawsuit filed by PFOX and CRC last year.

""Yeah," they think to themselves, "they tell me all of these reasons to be abstinent, but then they say that if I just can't help myself, and I feel the urge, and I really do feel at that moment that I love this person, then if I use protection I will be ok.""

This seems to be pure conjecture. My experiences dealing with teenagers (I have been an athletic coach for more than a decade and a volunteer make-up artist for the Einstein High School theater department for more than 6 years) indicate teens hold a wide variety of opinions on such topics. Does every teen you know think that and if so, how do you know they do if they "think to themselves?" Can you point us to any findings from peer reviewed studies that might indicate that every teenager who is taught a comprehensive sex education program in public school thinks these thoughts?

William Kilpatrick said, "But there is an even greater unreality lying at the bottom of the safe-sex approach, and that is the assumption that pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are the only problems. Another possibility - that one can do harm to one's own personality as well as to one's health through casual sex - is largely ignored."

Please read the MCPS revised health eduction curriculum. You will find that far from ignoring possible harm from casual sex, eighth grade students were to learn to:

William Kilpatrick continued, "The traditional reference to sexual intercourse as the "act of love" recognizes that is an action that creates a bond and implies a promise. To have sex without any such intent makes one a bit of a liar. To do it over and over with numerous partners makes one a liar several times over."

And Orin added, "Do we really want the Next Generation to be one of liars?"

What promise does do you and Mr. Kilpatrick think intercourse implies? What bond do you and Mr. Kilpatrick believe intercourse creates? Just because you two think intercourse implies a promise and creates a bond doesn't mean that everyone shares your opinion. Given the amount of pre- and extramarital intercourse that occurs in this country, it seems there are many Americans who disagree.

Orin said, "Ok, so we all agree that this is a life skill that students ought to possess...when do we teach it then? Why not teach it when the lesson is most likely to sink in a bit...say in 12th grade?"

Who says learning the proper use of prophylactics "is most likely to sink in a bit..say in 12th grade" but not in 10th grade? Do you have some peer reviewed scientific evidence to support this opinion of yours?

In Maryland most teenagers learn to drive in the 10th grade. We all know teenagers have the most car accidents of any age group, but we let them drive at 16 in Maryland. Why are they old enough to have driving lessons "sink in a bit" in 10th grade, but not old enough for lessons of proper prophylactic use to sink in?

"...ought we to be even perceived to be uncertain as to societal standards should be?...Truth be told, teen-children want to know what their parents think. I distinctly recall my father mentioning to me how some pilots and co-pilot (he was a flight engineer; he retired on the Boeing 747-SP) would go for drinks with some of the stewardesses (this is going back some 40 years) and mentioned this in a way that clearly communicated that he did not approve of this behavior. He thought it would lead to infidelity, and sometimes it did. I have taught my own two girls to be intolerant...intolerant of bullies, and to always be kind and a friend to those that do not have one."

Not all children want to know what their parents think. I'm happy for you that you and your father had a great relationship, but not all parent/child relationships are good. I'm sure Maya Keyes doesn't want to know what her father thinks about some topics (although his disowning her made his views on homosexuality pretty clear). Further, not all parents hold the same views. Obviously, within American society today, there are a variety of views as to what the "standards" ought to be.

You talk in such absolutes when you make statements like "children want to know what their parents think," and "'Yeah,' they think to themselves," that do not reflect reality IMHO. There is a much wider variety of views out there than you seem willing to admit exist.

"While medical information is certainly necessary, it is not sufficient."

Agreed! Please refer to the sections on relationships from the MCPS revised curricula I provided above within this comment. In addition to all the information the students receive at school, there is also all the spiritual and moral information they receive from their family, friends, community, church, doctor, etc. The more information the better. Knowledge is power.

"My father taught me once that "when passion runs high, reason goes out the window". Even in a "normal" state of being for any teen-child is "not reasonable"; in a sexually charged, excited, and agitated state of mind I highly doubt the reasonability of teens will improve any.

Sorry, color me skeptical"

OK, but only if you insist. :) (cilly joke!)

But seriously, just because teens won't always use their heads and may use a prophylactics incorrectly, are you saying proper prophylactic usage shouldn't be taught? You just agreed it's an important life skill. Do you think that because teens have the highest car accident rates we shouldn't teach them to drive? Or because many of them will never solve algebraic problems properly we should stop teaching algebra? It seems pretty obvious to me that giving students the training in proper usage in a classroom setting would increase their success in the heat of passion when compared to not giving them the training.

"Time to take nap...thank you Christine for the intellectually invigorating discussion. "